Comprehensive-WaterSupp-ly

Management Plan

-' .Burke County And Municipalities:

Girard

Keysville

Midville

Sardis

Vidette

Waynesboro

Rutherford & Associates

Savannah, Georgia

2000

,IA

iI

I'

The Burke County Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan'I

has been reviewed and approved by theG E

_.:.., ....... Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) - July 2.001

Georgia Department of Natural Resources205 Butler Street, S.E., East Floyd Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Lonica C. Barrett, CommissionerHarold F. Reheis, DirectorEnvironmental Protection Division

(404) 656-3.094

July 27, 2001

'i

Mr. C.W. Hopper, Jr., County AdministratorBurke County Board of CommissionersPost Office Box 89Waynesboro, Georgia 30630

Dear Mr. Hopper:

In April of 1997, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) announced, produced and distributed adocument entitled An Interim Strategy for Managing Saltwater Intrusion in Southeast Georgia. That document outlineda process that EPD would employ to develop a long-term strategy for addressing the water supply needs of coastal Georgiawhile minimizing or arresting the saltwater encroachment and intrusion phenomena known to be occurring along theGeorgia and South Carolina coasts. One important element of that strategy was the requirement that each of the 24counties in the affected areas (as defined by EPD) would develop a comprehensive county water supply plan. In June1997, EPD distributed an outline of a set of minimum criteria for these plans. In 1998 the Legislature approved funds to

.. .... partially support. thedevelopmentof.these plans in 22 of the 24.counties, and EPD and the Departmentof CommunityAffairs developed a process whereby funds would be distributed to these counties to assist them in producing their water

* ' supply plans. According to the time line established by EPD in the Interim Strategy, the plans were to be completed bythe county by December, 2000. As of May, 2001, each of the 24 counties has submitted final plans.

With this letter I wish to thank you and your constituents in Burke County for successfully completing your watersupply plan. EPD's review of your plan has found that it meets the State's minimum requirements. The data andinformation you have provided in your plan will allow EPD to begin the integration process which will lead to theproduction of a long-term regional plan for managing water to meet future water supply needs in coastal Georgia byDecember 2005. This process will require a"union" of your water supply plan and those of your neighboring counties.The process will also require that we utilize many of the findings from the "sound science" initiative also defined in theInterim Strategy. You and your constituents will continue to be an indispensable part of this integration process, and wewill consult with you in many different forums as the process unfolds.

Again, my sincere thanks to you for your invaluable contributionsto effective managementof coastal Georgia's waterresources.

Sincerely,

Harold ReheisDirector

SAWTR.SUPLY\'urkc approval leter.doc

¶ I

*1

'I

a I

I. INTRODUCTIO [-1I. INRO~uCION -1

A.B.C.D.E.F.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER PLAN

THE PROBLEM - SALTWATER INTRUSION

COMMITTEE MEMBERS/STRUCTURE

COUNTY OVERVIEWCOUNTY CLIMATE, HYDROLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY

COUITrY/REGION ECONOMIC SETTING

I-11-2I-31-41-51-8

11.

A.B.

A.B.C.ID.

IV...

BURKE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS H-9

HISTORICAL POPULATION: 1970 - 2000 11-9POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 2000 - 2050 11-10

WATER USE INVENTORY - BACKGROUND in-15

EPD GRO WATR WTRAwAL PERMITs In-I5EPD SAFE. DRINKING WATER PERMITS M1-16LOCAL DOMESTIC WELL PERMITS M11-17ASSESSING BURKE COUNTY'S WATER DEMAND IH-17

WATER DEMAND IV-19

PAST WATER DEMAND (1970 - 1990) IV-19PRESENT WATER DEMAND (1990 - 2000) IV-22

FUTURE WATER DEMAND (2000 - 2050) IV-29

WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT V-37

PRESENT WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT V-37FUTURE WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT V-39

FUTURE LAND USE VI-41

A.B.C.

V.

A.B.

Vi.

VII. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VII-51

A. PRESENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

B. FUTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Vi-51VII-52

I-1

VI._. PREFERRED WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SCENARIO VII-55

1t

A. CONSERVATIONIREDUCTION/REUSE MEASURES VII-55

IX. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IX-57

A. 2000 -2010 IMPLEMENTATION IX-57B. 2010 - 2020 IMPLEMENTATION IX-57C. 2020 - 2050 IMPLEMENTATION IX-57

" IX. APPENDICES X-59

A. MAPS X-59B. EPD INTERIM STRATEGY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS X-91C. USGS FLoRmDAN AQUIFER STUDIES X-121D. REFERENCES X-123E. LOCAL ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS X-125

1I

0i

1-2SI.

1. INTRODUCTION

A. General Description of the Water Plan

The Georgia Environmental- Protection Division (EPD) issued its Interim Strategy forManaging Salt Water Intrusion in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of Southeast. Georgia(Appendix B) in April 1997 to address saltwater intrusion that threatens future groundwatersupplies in (see Appendix A) Savannah and Brunswick, and potentially other areas ofSoutheast Georgia encompassing 24 counties (see map Appendix A). As part of its interimstrategy, EPO required Burke County and 23 other counties in the region that utilize theUpper Floridan Aquifer to develop a comprehensive water supply management plan thatassesses water demand, water supply sources and wastewater management.

The Burke County Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan (Plan) will examine

past and present water use, project future water needs, assess future water supply optionsand serve as a decision-making tool for local elected officials and Georgia EPD. The goalof the plan is to manage and conserve Burke County's present and future water resourcesin order for reasonable residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial growth to occurin the future, and to protect the quality of groundwater for use by future generations. ThisPlan should be reviewed at least every ten years to address changing circumstances thataffect water use in the county and its municipalities. The Plan's update schedule should

coincide with the county's update of its Comprehensive Plan.

-' Specifically, the Burke County Comprehensive Water Supply Management Planexamines the following aspects of water use in Burke County:

* Historical water use perspective.0 Review of existing water supply needs and options studies.* Current water management practices.* Identification of possible sources of water other than the Upper Floridan

Aquifer.* . Quantification of existing ground and surface water usage.

* Conservation efforts.0 Population, land use projections, and water demand projections to 2050.0 Development of water-supply management options.0 Implementation schedule.

Burke County and its aquifer users have identified the following principles as critical in* the Burke County Water Supply Management Plan.

(1) Continue to utilize the Floridan Aquifer to meet domestic water demand.

(2) Continue to allow current and future industrial usage of the Floridan Aquifer with

I-1

proper conservation and water saving principles employed by each industrial user.

(3) Continue to utilize the Floridan Aquifer for agricultural irrigation purposes.

(4)'Continue to utilize Brier Creek as a surface water source for public water for theCity of Waynesboro.

(5) Employ "Best Management Practices" for agricultural irrigation systems. This canbe accomplished by the County Extension Service working closely with theagricultural community.

(6) Seek legislative and financial assistance from State and Federal agencies to 4facilitate the use of surface water impoundments to utilize minor streams andcapture rainfall run-off to reduce usage and dependence on the Floridan Aquifer foragricultural practices.

(7) Develop a countywide water conservation education program and utilizemunicipalities, school system, civic organizations and county extension service toinform citizens about conservation principles and practices.

(8) Seek assistance from state EPD and the University of Georgia College ofAgriculture and Environmental Sciences to determine the viability of the CretaceousAquifer in the Coastal Plain as an alternative or supplemental source of fresh water.

(9) Determine, with state and federal assistance,. the true availability of surface waterfrom the Savannah River as a viable alternative or supplemental source of freshwater.

(1 O)The County will establish a committee of Floridan Aquifer users to monitorimplementation of this plan and to promote water conservation principles andpractices.

This Plan includes the municipalities of Girard, Keysville, Midville, Sardis, Vidette,Waynesboro and unincorporated Burke County..

B. The Problem - Saltwater Intrusion

The Upper Floridan Aquifer is the primary source of water for drinking, industrialprocesses, and agricultural irrigation for Burke County and the other 23 Southeast Georgiacounties required to prepare comprehensive water supply management plans. The aquiferunderlies Southeast Georgia, most of Southwest Georgia, Coastal South Carolina, aportion of Southern Alabama and Florida (see Appendix A). Secondary aquifers includethe Surficial, Upper and Lower Brunswick (Miocene) and Lower Floridan and various

1-2

aquifers in the Cretaceous strata. The location of the Cretaceous aquifer is shown inAppendix A.

Most groundwater management issues in Coastal Georgia relate to lateral or upwardmovement of freshwater-saltwater interface in the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Due to overpumping, a reversal of the seaward hydraulic gradient has caused lateral encroachment ofseawater in the aquifer at the north end of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, and verticalintrusion of saltwater in the aquifer at Brunswick, Georgia.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Georgia Environmental Protection*Division (EPO) have conducted numerous studies of the Floridan aquifer system in

Southeast Georgia. These studies provide guidance in the preparation of the County'swater supply management plan. The studies are listed in Appendix C.

The State Environmental Protection Division is currently conducting a seven-year $15million comprehensive study of the Floridan aquifer system to answer many of thequestions that have been raised by regulators and stakeholders during the past ten years.This Plan will have to be reviewed and updated as soon as that study is complete.

C. Committee Members/Structure

In order to develop a comprehensive water supply management plan for Burke County thataddresses the interests of all stakeholders, -an advisory committee was established toguide the plan development process. The advisory committee was comprised of countyand city elected and appointed officials; citizens; industrial, business, agricultural andenvironmental representatives; public drinking water and wastewater managers; industrialengineers; and others with technical interests. This committee met during the Plandevelopment process to prepare a workable Plan that would meet the county's diverseneeds. One public meeting was held during the Plan development process, and theCounty will hold a final meeting after the EPO review process and prior to final submittal ofthe Plan to the State. The members of the advisory committee are shown in Table 1 -1.

Table 1-1: Burke CountyComprehensive Water Supply Management Plan

Advisory Committee MembersCommittee Member Interest

Ellis Godbee County CommissionerJimmy Dixon County Commissioner

Woodrow Harvey County Commissioner

Herman Lodge County Com missioner

Frank Williams County Commissioner

1-3

Ii

Billy Hopper

Martin Dolin

Jack Brantley

Ed Grunewald

John Hamilton

Virgil Choate

Harry Whitehead

Everett McBride

Emma Gresham

Richard McDaniel

Sam Story

Stan Hillis

Ralph Sanderford

W. H. Harper

Tommy Rowell

Doug Day

Stephen Murray

Wayne Weddon

Jerry Long

Paul Shiver

Alphonso Andrews

Jesse Burke

Earl Porterfield

County Administrator

Mayor, Waynesboro

Administrator, Waynesboro

Mayor, Girard

Mayor, Sardis

Former Mayor, Midville

Mayor, Midville

Mayor, Vidette

Mayor, Keysville

County Extension

Farmer

Farmer

Farmer

Chair, Burke Development Authority

Well Driller

School Superintendent

Health Department

Chamber of Commerce

Director, Industrial Development

Real Estate

Home & Hospital Authority

Road Superintendent

Director, Emergency Management Agency

ii

II

:1

Through the County Extension agent, the farm community participated in the planningprocess to assist in determining present and future agricultural water use.

ý

D. County Overview

Burke County is located in east central Georgia in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographicprovince. This province is generally characterized by flat areas that slope gentlysouthward. The County Seat of Waynesboro is located 31 miles south of Augusta, 110miles northwest of Savannah, and 105 miles northeast of Macon, Georgia. The county islocated in the Central Savannah River Area and is bounded on the east by the SavannahRiver, on the south by Emanuel, Jenkins, and Screven counties, on the west by JeffersonCounty and on the north by Richmond County. Burke County contains 834.1 square miles.Of this area, 532,992 acres are land and 832 acres are covered by water. This ranks

Burke County as the second largest county in the state of Georgia.

ii

I-4

ii

Yr

* ei

. Ie

l~~ ~i; See Map in Appendix A.

The county government is conducted through an elected Board of Commissioners. TheCounty employs an Administrator to assist in implementation of policies and to overseeday-to-day operations. The City of Waynesboro employs a City Administrator to assist itsMayor and Council in daily operations. The cities of Girard, Keysville, Midville and Videtteconduct business through a Mayor and Council form of government and each employs acity clerk for assistance.

E. County climate, hydrology, hydrogeology

The average daily temperature in Burke County is 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Average dailylow is 52.3 degrees Fahrenheit and average daily high is 76.4 degrees Fahrenheit.Precipitation average is 44.89 inches annually.1 Table 1-2 depicts the average rainfall ininches by month of the year.

Table 1-2: Average Rainfall by Month -1961 through 1990

Month Rainfall (In Inches)January 4.10February 4.11March 4.35April 3.10May 3.61June 3.90July 4.56August 5.38September 3.41October 2.58November 2.63December 3.16TOTAL 44.89

1 Data from 1961 - 1990. Source: Natural ResourcesWater and Climate Center.

1-5

Conservation Service, National

The surface water sources of the county are depicted on a hydrology map in Appendix A.Surface sources that could be used as a potential water supply source are the SavannahRiver and Brier Creek. The large number of creeks and streams throughout the countydoes present possible opportunities for impoundments to be utilized as part of the overallagricultural irrigation system.

Burke County lies within the Tifton Upland and Louisville Plateau, a generalizedtopographic division of the Coastal Plain province. The Tifton Upland ranges from about120 to 400 feet in altitude and is characterized by rolling hills and both gentle and deeplyincised valleys. The Louisville Plateau ranges inaltitude from about 300 to 600 feet and ischaracterized by broad, flat uplands. The area of the Louisville Plateau is roughly thesame as the area extent of sand and calcareous sand that is equivalent in age to theUpper Floridan aquifer.

'IThe Coastal Terraces boundary of the Tifton Upland is the approximate down dip edge ofthe Gulf Trough. The Trough is narrow, generally less than 5 miles wide, but as much as10 miles wide in central Georgia and near the Florida and Georgia state -line. :1

The Gulf Trough (a-depressed segment of the earth's crust bounded on at least two sidesby faults) is caused by high-angle faulting that was active during much of the time of thedeposition of rocks that make up the Floridan aquifer system. Within the depressedsegments (grabens) are thick accumulations of low permeability, clastic (rock) sedimentsand argillaceous (clay or clay minerals) carbonate rocks.

The Trough has a pronounced effect on the hydrology of the aquifer system, as the fineclastic material in the trough impedes groundwater flow. The water quality, as mineralizedwater, is associated with evaporites downgradient from the trough. Because of largequantities of recharge and discharge in the flow system upgradient from the Gulf Trough,water is low in dissolved solids and is moderately hard.

Groundwater flow in the Floridan aquifer system is partially impeded by the Gulf Trough asa result of two mechanisms. First, near-vertical displacement of rocks along the faults ofthe graben system has juxtaposed rocks of lower permeability against the more permeablerocks of the aquifer system. Second, within the graben system, the aquifer systemconsists of relatively low permeability material, which decreases. the aquifer system'seffective thickness.

1'

The area of highest recharge to the aquifersystem prior to development was chiefly updipand upgradient from the Gulf Trough, where the aquifer system is exposed or thinlycovered and least confirmed. In this area, recharge occurred in the topographically highareas, either directly into the exposed or thinly covered Upper Floridan.

The small quantity of flow passing downgradient through the Upper and Lower Floridanaquifers across the Gulf Trough, compared to the total flow in the area upgradient from the

1-6

trough, further supports the existence of an active but nearly isolated flow system in theFloridan Aquifer upgradient from the Gulf Trough. The Gulf Trough, however, has beendetermined to be an area where development potential is small, because of the lowtransmissivities that would result in large localized water level decline.

The Sound Science Initiative Study of the Floridan aquifer system that is being conductedby the state EPD should shed more light on this prominent geological structure as towhether or not it has an impact on the ground-water flows of the Floridan aquifer system.As a result of the study, it may be that withdrawal upgradient of the trough has no impacton the withdrawal downgradient of the trough. If so, then the opportunity for salt waterintrusion in the. upgradient areas of the trough would be greatly minimized. This does not,however, remove the possibility of water level declines in areas .of the Gulf Troughresulting in reduced water quality.

Preliminary seismic results from the Sound Science Initiative Study indicate that the GulfTrough does not extend across Burke County. There does not appear to be any influenceof the Trough at work in Burke County. See map in Appendix A for area of the GulfTrough.

. .EPD and USGS have studied a number of different aquifers within the Coastal Plain. Theinterbedded sands and clays of the Cretaceous units of the Coastal Plain form a number ofaquifers and confining units. Seven such Cretaceous aquifers in the Coastal Plain havebeen identified and designated aquifers A1 through A7. These aquifers are rarely tappeddue to the ease of obtaining water from the shallower Floridan aquifer system.

Aquifer A1 extends into Burke County. In 1976, 1.5 million gallons per day were pumpedfrom this aquifer for industrial use in Screven County.

Other aquifers available for use are the Dublin, Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifersystems. Two wells in Screven County drilled in the Dublin aquifer in the mid-1 960s andlate 1971 yielded up to 1,500 gallons and 1,750 gallons a minute, respectively.

The Millhaven site, located in northeastern Screven County, was studied during 1991 -1994. This study was to determine groundwater flow and stream-aquifer relations in thevicinity of the Savannah River Site. The test site consisted of a 1,452-foot deep core-holedrilled into sediments of the late Cretaceous age. Five test wells were developed atdepths ranging from 50 to 1,300 feet. Test well 3 was in the lower zone of the UpperFloridan aquifer. It produced over 207 gallons a minute when pumped. Test well 4 was inthe lower Dublin aquifer and it produced 76 gallons a minute when pumped. Test well 5was in the lower Midville aquifer and only produced about 15 gallons a minute whenpumped.

The Millers Pond test site in northeastern Burke County was constructed in 1991 -1992 to

characterize the geologic, hydrologic, and water quality characteristics of a multi-aquifer

1-7

system in Coastal Plain sediments. Seven test wells were developed ranging in depthfrom 80 to 735 feet. The test wells were screened in the Upper Three Runs aquifer, Dublinaquifer system and the Midville aquifer system. Three wells in the Dublin aquifer systemproduced from 12 to 41 gallons a minute. Three wells in the Midville aquifer systemproduced from 65 to 178 gallons a minute. One well was drilled in the Upper Three Runsaquifer-and it only produced 8 gallons a minute.

F. County/Region economic setting

Burke County has close to 50 percent of its total land area identified as prime farmland.This is approximately 240,367 acres. As of 1989, there were an estimated 293,529 acresor 55 percent of the total land area identified as forestland. Continued developmentpressures for subdivisions and other rural development could cause these acres to declinein the future. This change in land use can create a demand for more water to serve thenew residents and support their intense water-use practices.

Government employment, retail trade and services, and manufacturing are the majoremployment sectors in the -county. Retail trade and services playsma significant role inBurke County's economy and generates approximately 33 percent of the employmentopportunities. Farming and Forestry provide about 10 percent of the employment ,opportunities for the county. However, farming has continued to decline as a chosenvocation. The number of farms and the number of acres farmed are about half of the 1964total.

The County does seem to benefit from some tourism activities such as the annual Bird DogField Trials and the Ogeechee Redbreast Festival. It is suggested that tourismopportunities could be further developed and is quite likely that tourism will increase inyears to come.

Population projections for Burke County and its municipalities are provided in the next ,section.

lq

1-8

1~.1!

II. BURKE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS

A. Historical Population: 1970 - 2000

Burke County's population has not grown significantly since the 1970s. Table 2-1 lists thecounty and municipal populations from 1970 to 1995, as well as a population estimate forthe year 2000 from the CSRA RDC and the U.S. Bureau of Census.

Table 2-1: Population for Burke County and Municipalities for 1970 -2000

1970 1960 _1985 1990 1995 2000

" Girard

Keysville

• r Midville

Sardis

_, ayndette,.J Waynesboro

241

NA

665

643

131

5,530

225

408

670

1,180

103

5,750

212

400

656

1,321

88

6,079

219

391

623

1,339

75

6,056

218

403

605

1,386

77

6,146

216

415

587

1,432

80

6,237

Total Municipality 7,210 8,336 8,756 8,703 8,835 8,967

Unincorporated County 11,045 11,411 12,444 12,762 13,277 13,792

Total County 18,255 19,747 21,200 21,465 22,112 22,759

Source: CSRA & US Bureau of Census

*1

Table 2-2 lists historical household sizes for Burke County and its municipalities.

Table 2-5: Average Household Size 1990

Jurisdiction 1990

Girard 2.9

Keysville 4.1

Midville 2.6

Sardis 3.0

Vidette 2.5

Waynesboro 2.7

Burke County 2.7

Source: CSRA RDC 1992 & US Bureau of Census

11-9

B. Population projections: 2000 - 2050 ii

1. Population estimates

Table 2-3 compares population projections for the time frame of 2000 to 2050 from twodifferent sources. DRI/McGraw Hill was employed by EPD to prepare populationprojections for the entire state by river basins. Rutherford & Associates prepared Iestimates for Burke County after discussions with representatives of the Chamber ofCommerce, Industrial Development Authority, farmers, elected and appointed officials ofthe County and local municipalities. Rutherford & Associates also considered currentgrowth trends of adjoining counties. Rutherford & Associates prepared projections basedon the following growth rates:

2000 -2010 10%-2020 12%-2030 15%j-2040 15%-2050 15% 1

Table 2-3: Comparison of Population Projections for 2000-2050

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

DRI 20,507 20,632 20,981 21,331 21,851 22,605 23,552 24,522 25,464 26,386 27,422

Ruther-ford & 23,174 24,912 26,650 28,648 30,647 32,945 35,244 37,359 39,473 41,467 43,420Assoc.

The population forecast prepared in 1996 by DRI/McGraw-Hill for the GeorgiaEnvironmental Protection Division raised questions and concerns about validity because ofpopulation projections for neighboring counties. Bryan and Effingham Counties willexceed the estimated growth prepared by DRI for the 50-year term. The 2000 DRIestimate for Effingham County is only 29,695 while the county population estimate in 1997was 37,781. The 2050 DRI estimate is only 42,814 while the county's water plan indicatesa potential population of 195,000 in 2050. The DRI population projection for Bryan Countyin 2000 is 19,337. However, the 2000 population in Bryan County will actually exceed theDRI estimate of 32,881 for the year 2050.

Current trends of people moving to Burke County will only grow because of the desire ofpeople to live in a rural setting and yet be able to travel to their job. With the widening ofUS Highway 25, more people will move to Burke County. The price of land is much lessthan in neighboring Richmond County. When the road project is fully complete, peopleliving in Waynesboro will be less than 30 minutes away from Augusta. Trends have shownthat people do not mind commuting up to 45 minutes if they can enjoy a quality of life in amore rural setting.

11-10

:1

'I

11

At

ii

J. i

1?

I.'

Tables 2-4 and 2-5 list the population projections for the County andfor the time period 2000 to 2050.

its municipalities

Table 2-4: Population Projections for Burke County

And Municipalities for 2000-2025

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Waynesboro 6,237 6,823 7,408 8,147 8,887 9,730

Keysville 415 598 742 1,003 1,165 1,384

Girard 216 241 266 285 306 329

Midville 587 639 692 760 827 943

Sardis 1,432 1,569 1,705 1,864 2,022 2,244

Vidette 107 133 159 172 184 198

Total Municipality 8,994 10,003. 10,972 12,231 13,391 14,828

Unincorporated County 14,180 14,909 15,678 16,417 17,256 18,117

Total County 23,174 24,912 26,650 28,648 30,647 32,945

Source:.Rutherford & Associates......

Table 2-5: Population Projections for Burke County

And Municipalities for 2030-2050

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Girard 352 373 395 415 434

Keysville 1,586 1,830 2,013 2,268 2,475

Midville 1,058 1,141 1,224 1,328 • 1,433

Sardis 2,467 2,635 2,802 2,964 3,126

Vldette 212 225 237 249 261

Waynesboro 10,573 11,405 12,237 13,066 13,894

Total Municipality 16,248 17,609 18,908 20,290 21,623

Unincorporated County 18,996 19,750 20,565 21,187 21,797

Total County 35,2" 37,359 39,473 41,477 43,420

Source: Rutherford & Associates

. I

I1-11

J

2. Household EstimatesTables 2-6 and 2-7 provide projections for the number of households in each of themunicipalities and unincorporated county.

Table 2-6: Household Projections for Burke County

And Municipalities for 2000-2025

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Girard 83 93 102 110 118 127

Keysville 160 230 285 386 448 532

Midville 226 246 266 292 318 363

Sardis 551 603 656 717 778 863

Vldette 41 51 61 66 71 76

Waynesboro 2,399 2,624 2,849 3,133 3,418 3,742

Total Municipality 3,459 3,847 4,220 4,704 5,150 5,703

Unincorporated County 5,454 5,734 6,030 6,314 6,637 6,968

Total County 8,913 9,582 10,250 11,018 11,787 12,671

Based on 2.6 persons per householdSource: Rutherford & Associates

Table 2-7: Household Projections for Burke County

And Municipalities for 2030-2050

2030 •2035 2040 2045 2050

Girard 135 143 152 160 167

Keysville 610 704 774 872 952

Midville 407 439 471 511 551

Sardis 949 1,013 1,078 1,140 1,202

Vidette 82 87 91 96 100

Waynesboro 4,067 4,387 4,707 5,025 5,344

Total Municipality 6,249 6,773 7,272 7,804 8,317

Unincorporated County 6,249 7,596 7,910 8,149 8,383

Total County 12,498 14,369 15,182 15,953 16,700Based on 2.6 persons per householdSource: Rutherford & Associates

'I.1

'I

I)

ii

'I

11-12

II

J I

Table 2-8 provides additional information regarding household projections. It is quiteevident that the projected population growth is achievable, particularly given the lownumber of new households needed to meet the demand. Only 156 new households needto be added annually throughout the county to meet the projected projections. Thisequates to only 13 new residences a month throughout the county. It must beremembered that a manufactured home is a household.

If

Table 2-8: Estimated Household Summary Related to PopulationProjection, 2000 - 2050Total Increase Households Needed Per Year

In Households for Projected Population

Girard 84 2

Keysville 792 16

Midville 325 7

Sardis 651 13

Vidette 59 1

Waynesboro 2,945 59

Total Municipality 4,856 98

Unincorporated County 2,929 59

TOTAL 7,785 156

Source: Rutherford & Associates

I i

11-13

'1

iil

J

'i

'1

If

ii

111-14

¶ I

.11

ii

'1ii

;i

Ill. WATER USE INVENTORY - BACKGROUND

A. EPD Groundwater Withdrawal Permits

'go

• )Tale 3-1 his~~ts me foir gi•rlound 'aer wdhdrawa prm •&uding

agricultural) in Burke County in 1999, including permitted monthly and yearly averagewithdrawal per day, The permitted monthly average withdrawal allows a groundwater userto meet seasonal peak flow demand, but the permitted yearly average withdrawal (gallonsper day) cannot be exceeded over the course of a year. Surface water users are listed inTable 3-2,

Table 3-1: Groundwater Withdrawal Permits(> 100, 000 gallons per day) in Burke County

Permit Permitted Monthly Permitted YearlyPermitted Facility Type Average Withdrawal Average(MGD) Withdrawal (MGD)

City of Sardis Municipal .207 .200City of Waynesboro Municipal 4.00 3.500Plant VogUe Industrial 6.00 5.500International Paper Industrial .180 .180(McBean Woodyard)TOTAL 10.380 9.380Source: EPD

Table 3-2: Surface Water Reported Usage

Permitted Facility Facility Type Water Usage(MGD)

Waynesboro Municipal .680

Plant Vogtle Industrial 62.830

TOTAL 63,510Source: USGS

; I

111-15

B. EPD Safe Drinking Water Permits

4 ,a.. .

the 12 safe drinking water permits in Burke ,ouiy i 1998, icluding he populationserved by each water system as most recently reported to EPD. Types of water suppliersand users covered by safe drinking water permits include municipal water systems, suchas those operated by the City of Girard; industrial facilities (with more than 25 employeesor on-site customers), such as Georgia Power-Simulator building, that supply their ownwater for production and use a portion for employee and/or customer consumption;community water systems serving residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and otherresidential uses not supplied by municipal water systems; and non-community watersystems, designated by EPD as transient or non-transient, serving schools, businesses,parks and other non-residential uses not supplied by municipal water systems. Onlycommunity and non-community water systems that meet EPD's minimum size requirementnoted above require safe drinking water permits.

Table 3-2: Safe Drinking Water Permits in Burke County (August 1999)Permitted System Type of Water System Population

(EPD Classification) Served*

Burke Academy Non-Transient, Non Community 500Burke County Training Center Non-Transient, Non Community 64Georgia Power-Simulator Bldg. Non-Transient, Non Community 125.Georgia Power- Vogtle makeup Non-Transient, Non Community 1,100Georgia Power-Vogtle Rec. Area Transient, Non Community 300City of Girard Community 220City of Keysville Community 400

City of Midville Community 840City of Sardis Community 1,383City of Vidette Community 83

City of Waynesboro Community 5,161Mamie Jo Rhodes Harrison Subdivision Community 47Source: GA EPD*Population estimates are from EPD records, which cover 1989 to 1998.

.1}

ii

:1

'I

.1

'I

Ii

111-16

ii

1!

L C. Local Domestic Well Permits

D. Assessing Burke County's Water Demand

As part of EPD's comprehensive water supply management plan requirements, eachcounty must assess past, present and future water demand. It should be noted thatBurke County's present water supply is derived almost entirely from. groundwater, andthe use of surface water for Waynesboro is considered in this water use inventory andprojection.

For the purpose of this Plan, Burke County water demand is analyzed for the followingcategories of wells and water systems, based on EPD's groundwater managementregulatory structure, Burke County's well permitting process, and present waterwithdrawal -and-use- in the county:

Industrial wells- Provide industrial process water to industrial facilities not

connected to municipal water systems- May require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit and EPD safe

drinking water permitMunicipal water systems- Serve residential, commercial and industrial customers inside and,

in some cases, outside municipal boundaries- May require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit and require EPD

safe drinking water permit* Community water systems

- Serve residential subdivisions and other small residential areas notconnected to municipal water systems

- Provide water to at least 15 residences or 25 individuals- Usually do not require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit, but

require EPD safe drinking water permitNon-community water systems- Serve businesses, schools and other non-residential facilities not

connected to municipal water systems- Provide water to at least 25 individuals more than 60 days per year- Usually do not require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit, but

require EPD safe drinking water permit

111-17

Domestic wells- Serve individual residences not connected to municipal watersystems

Usually do not require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit, but Imay require Burke County Health Department well permit and/orlocal city permit

Agricultural/golf course irrigation wells A- Serve agricultural operations and golf courses not connected to

municipal water systems I- May require EPD groundwater withdrawal permit

'I

3,

Ii

ii

ii

¶1

IV. WATER DEMAND

A. Past Water Demand (1970 - 1990)

Ii

71

1. Past domestic/commercial water demand

Domestic and commercial water usage is shown in Table 4-1 for the time period of 1970through 1990. Actual water usage is not available for each municipality. In most cases,per capita usage consumption is the basis for water use estimates. Maximum daily useinformation is not available.

i i

Table 4-1: Domestic and Commercial Usage

Burke County (MGD), 1970 - 1990

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Girard 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.032 0.033

Keysville - - 0.061 0.060 0.059Midville 0.100 0.100 0.101 0.098 0.093

Sardis 0.096 0.137 0.177 0.198 0.201Vidette 0.020 0.018 0.015 0.013 0.011

Waynesboro 0.830 0.847 0.864 0.912 0.908Unincorporated 1.657 1.684 1.712 1.867 1.914County I

Total County 2.738 2.820 2.964 3.180 3.219Consumption calculated at 150 GPD per capitaSource: Rutherford & Associates

2. Past Industrial water demandPast water use data for permitted industrial users is unavailable for 1970 - 1985 isunavailable.

Table 4-2: Industrial Water Usage1970- 1985

1970 1975 1980 1985

Plant Vogtle - SIC NA NA NA NA

NA: Not Available

Water Conservation Measures EmployedThere are no data available on water conservation measures employed by industrialusers during the period from 1970 tol 985.

IV-19

3. Past agricultural water demand

Corn, cotton, peanuts and soybeans are the major irrigated crops.

Table 4-3 shows past and present water demand for agricultural uses. As evidenced froma comparison of 1986 and 1999, the acreage irrigated has increased by almost 10,000acres. The fact that 1999 was a drought year shows almost triple the water needed forirrigation.

Table 4-3: Past Agricultural Water Demand JSurface Water and Groundwater (MGD)

1980- 1999

1980, 1986 2 19903 1997 4 19995

Acres Irrigated 29,278 15,565 16,946 23,070 22,622

Ground 18.409 5.527 2.570 7.08 13.388Water USedSurface 3.024 1.381 .450 1.870 3.034

Total Water Use 21.657 6.908 3.020 8.950 16.734

Acres irrigated-reported in 1996 Georgia County Guide. 1950 was a d...rought year. Assu .m e 10 Inchesof irrigation per acre: 15% surface water, 85% groundwater.2 Acres irrigated reported in 1996 Georgia County Guide. Assumes 6 Inches of Irrigation per acre:

20% surface water,.80% groundwater.3 Water usage and acreage irrigated reported In EPD Information Circular 90.4 Water usage and acreage irrigated reported in EPO Information Circular 104.5 Acreage for working on Water Supply Management Plan. Assumes 10 inches of irrigation per acre:20% surface water, 80% groundwater. 1999 was a drought year.

Water Use Inventory And Projection -Agricultural Irrigation WellsThis section addresses agricultural operations that utilize their own wells on-site forirrigation. EPD even considers golf courses to be an agricultural use for the purpose ofgroundwater management. Agricultural operations that withdraw more than 100,000gallons of groundwater per day require an EPD groundwater withdrawal permit. Onehundred and fifteen permits for agricultural operations presently meet this requirement inBurke County. EPD has begun issuing letters of concurrence for agriculture permits incoordination with the County Extension Office. The "letters" are only valid for two years.The well must be constructed and be in use within the two year period or the user will losethe right to construct a well.

Compared to its neighboring counties, Burke County has a significant amount ofagriculture and related water use. According to the EPD Information Circular 104,approximately 23,070 acres were irrigated for farming purposes in 1997. According toinformation from EPD in 1999, over 22,662 acres are permitted for irrigation. Someagricultural acreage has been lost in Burke County over the past few years as the county

IV-20

I I

I J

has become more urbanized. However, with the increased acres permitted for irrigation,an increase in farming can be expected.

For irrigation calculations, one inch of water per acre equals 27,000 gallons. Single crop¶ farming has a growing season of approximately 120 days while double crop farming has a

growing season of approximately 270 days. Irrigation does not occur each day of therespective growing season. However, during the growing seasons, there are criticalperiods when the crops need precise irrigation. During these times, the systems may workseveral days straight for 24 hours a day. For comparison, all irrigation use is shown as ifthe use occurred 365 days a year instead of the actual time period. By averaging dailywater use, agricultural, domestic/commercial, and industrial usage may be compared more

I easily. Because of recovery characteristics of the aquifer, it is important to examine¶ , pumping effects on the aquifer on an annual basis rather than a daily basis.

*1 Establishments that produce agricultural commodities, livestock, or operate timber tractshave been assigned major group numbers as partof the Standard Industrial ClassificationSystem (SIC). The SIC numbers for agricultural crops is SIC-Ol; for livestock is SIC-02;and for forestry practices is SIC-08.

The US Geological Survey estimates that 2.57 million gallons per day gallons ofgroundwater and .450 million gallons day of surface water for a total agricultural use of3.02 million gallons per day were used for irrigation in 1990. In 1997, 7.08 million gallonsper day ground water and 1.87 million gallons per day surface water were used for a totalagricultural use of 8.95 million gallons per day. The US Geological survey produces theseestimates for total water use in a county..

Each crop has a recognized amount of rainfall or irrigation that is needed to make theparticular crop. Georgia EPD does not now require the crop information when withdrawal

4 applications'are filed. The State of Florida through its water management districts doespermit irrigation by crop type and other climate information.

Major crops irrigated (w~rrrigation acreage)Corn, cotton, peanuts and soybeans are the major crops irrigated. Some pecan orchardsare irrigated. Vegetable crops will begin to take a large percentage of irrigated areas.Data regarding acres irrigated by crop is shown in Table 4-4.

Water use by cropCotton and peanut crops can use the most water because they have critical periods in thegrowth cycle that must have adequate water in order to make a crop. Certain vegetablecrops will require significant water. Water use by crop is shown in Table 4-4.

IV-21

11Table 4-4: Acres per Crop and Water Use 'MGD) per Crop: 1970- 1985

1970 1975 1980 1985

Acres Water Acres Water Acres Water Acres WaterUse A Use Use Use

Corn 65 0.048 150 0.111 15,600 11.575 8,400 6.232

Cotton 55 0.041 .165 0.122 800 0.593 900 0.667

Peanuts - 0 0 3,600 2.671 2,200 1.632

Soybeans - 0 - 0 4,300 3.190 3,800 2.819

Vegetables - 0 - 0 100 0.133 50 0.066

Pecans - 0 - 0 - 0 610 0.452

Pasture - 0 - 0 2,650 1.966 1,533 1.137

TOTAL 120 0.089 315 0.233 27,050 20.128 17,493 13.005

Vegetables include cucumbers, squash, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons, and cantaloupes.Source: Burke County

Water conservation measures employedAll farmers employ Best Management Practices (BMP) for agricultural activities. The useof too much water causes soil erosion and nutrient loss and creates additional problemsand expense for the farmers. Farmers use electricity or diesel generators to run thepumps at the wells. Even though the water being pumped has no cost, the methodsimplemented to utilize that water for irrigation are expensive. The costs of a well and acenter pivot system can run several thousand dollars.

Potential water savings and related costs have been identified in an EPD report entitledIrrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States. Themost important point in this report is that farmers should conduct an irrigation efficiencyaudit to determine where improvements in irrigation practices could occur.

II

ii

II

'I

II* I

II

SIB. Present Water Demand (1990 - 2000)

1. Present Domestic/Commercial water demand - present permitted facilities

The domestic and commercial water usage for each of the municipalities and theunincorporated county are shown in Tables 4-5 through 4-12.

4. .1

IV-22

di

Table 4-5: Domestic and Commercial Usage

Burke County (MGD), 1990 - 1999

1990 1995 1999

1990 1995 1999

Girard 0.033 0.033 0.033

Keysville 0.059 0.060 0.062

Midville 0.093 0.091 0.089

Sardis 0.201 0.208 0.214

Vidette 0.011 0.012 0,012

Waynesboro* 0.908 0.922 0.935

Unincorporated County 1.914 1.992 2.068Consumption calculated at 150 GPD per capita*Waynesboro data is reported usage for 1999Source: Rutherford & Associates

Ii

.1~~~*

-J

* I

& I

*1

ii

Water use for 1990 and 1995- for-the-Gity of Waynesboro-is-shown in Table. 4=6, TheCity of Waynesboro has employed leak detection programs as a practice to reduce itsunaccounted for water loss. The City is working toward a 10% unaccounted for waterloss.

Table 4-6: City of WaynesboroSelect Water Use and Per Capita for 1997, 1998, 1999

(Water use reported in MGD)1997 1998 1999

Population: 6,191 Population: 6,205 Population: 6,219

Daily Total Per Capita Daily Total Per Capita Daily Total Per CapitaWater Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use Water Use

Jan 0.797 128 0.972 155 1.088 175Feb 0,803 129 0.993 160 1.090 175Mar 0.878 142 1.229 198 1.102 177Apr 0.962 155 1.300 209 1.162 186May 1.208 195 1.441 232 1.352 217June 1.371 221 1.574 253 1.398 224July 1.573 254 1.515 244 1.310 210Aug 1.520 245 1.311 211 1.626 261Sept 1.531 247 1.208 194 1.413 227Oct 1.188 192 1.211 195 1.266 203Nov 0.899 145 1.025 165 1.157 186Dec 0.775 125 1.117 180 1.156 186

These per capita figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.Source: City of Waynesboro, Rutherford & Associates

IV-23

Table 4-7: City of Girard

I. I

ii

Maximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999(Water use reported in MGD)

1990 1995 1999Population: 219 Population: 218 Population: 214

Daily Water Per Daily Water Per Daily Water PerUse capita* Use capita* Use capita*

Jan 0.029 132 0.028 128 0.029 136Feb 0.030 137 0.029 133 0.029 136Mar • 0.031 142 0.032 147 0.031 145Apr 0.032 146 0.033 151 0.033 154May 0.033 151 0.033 151 0.034 159June 0.035 160 0.036 165 0.036 168July 0.038 174 0.039 .179 0.037 173Aug 0.037 169 0.036 165 0.037 173Sept 0.036 164 0.036 165 0.036 168Oct 0.034 155 0.033 151 0.034 159Nov 0.033 151 0.031 142 0,032 150Dec 0.030 137 0.029 133 0.029 136

Average 0.033 151 0.033 151 0.033 1-55*These figures also Include some commercial and Industrial usage.Source: Rutherford & Associates

Table 4-8: City of Keysville

Maximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999(Water use reported in MGD)

1990 1995 1999Population: 391 Population: 403 Population: 410

Daily Water Per Daily Water Per Daily Water PerUse capita* Use capita* Use capita*

Jan 0.056 143 0.057 141 0.058 141Feb 0.057 146 0.057 141 0.058 141Mar 0.058 148 0.058 144 0.059 144Apr 0.058 148 0.060 149 0.061 149May 0.060 153 0.061 151 0.063 154

.June 0.061 156 0.063 156 0.065 159July 0.063 161 0.065 161 0.066 161Aug 0.063 161 0.066 164 0.065 159Sept 0.061 156 0.060 149 0.064 156Oct 0.060 153 0.060 149 0.063 154Nov 0.059 151 0.058 144 0.062 151Dec 0.055 141 0.057 141 0.061 149

Average 0.059 152 0.060 149 0.062 151*These figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.Source: Rutherford & Associates

.1

.1

Li

IV-24

J I

it

* I

p.,

if

'11

Table 4-9: City of KeysvilleMaximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999

(Water use reported in MGD)

1990 1995 1999Population: 623 Population: 605 Population: 596

Daily Water Per Daily Water Per Daily Water PerUse capita* Use capita* Use capita*

Jan 0.089 143 0.088 145 0.086 144Feb 0.091 146 0.089 147 0.086 144Mar 0.092 148 0.091 150 0.087 146Apr 0.093 149 0.092 152 0.089 149May 0.095 152 0.093 154 0.091 153June 0.097 156 0.094 155 0.092 154July 0.098 157 0.095 157 0.093 156Aug 0.095 152 0.095 157 0.093 156Sept 0.094 151 0.092 152 0.090 151Oct 0.092 148 0.090 149 0.089 149Nov 0.090 144 0.088 145 0.087 146

0.089 143 0.087 144 0.087 146Average 0.093 149 0.091 151 0.087- 150*These figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.Source: Rutherford & Associates

Table 4-10: City of Sardis

Maximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999(Water use reported in MGD)

1990 1995 1999Population: 1,339 Population: 1,386 Population: 1,422

Daily Water Per Daily Water Per Daily Water PerUse capita* Use capita* Use capita*

Jan 0.189 141 0.196 141 0.193 136Feb 0.190 142 0.199 144 0.195 137Mar 0.195 146 0.203 146 0.205 144Apr 0:199 149 0.210 152 0.215 151May 0.210 157 0.224 162 0.235 165June 0.231 173 0.245 177 0.256 180July 0.230 172 0.237 171 0.248 174Aug 0.216 161 0.215 155 0.227 160Sept 0.199 149 0.201 145 0.213 150Oct 0.190 142 .0.197 142 0.20 141Nov 0.185 138 0.188 136 0.194 136Dec 0.180 134 0.184 133 0.189 133

Average 0.201 150 0.208 150 0.214 151*These figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.Source: Rutherford & Associates

p

IV-25

.Table 4-11: City of VidetteMaximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999

(Water use reported in MGD)1990 1995 1999

Population: 75 Population: 77 Population: 78Daily Water Per Daily Water Per Daily Water Per

Use capita* Use capita* Use capita*Jan 0.009 120 0.008 104 0.009 115Feb 0.010 133 0.009 117 0.009 115Mar 0.011 147 0.012 156 0.011 141Apr 0.012 ,1160 0.013 169 0.012 154May 0.012 160 0.014 182 0.015 192June 0.013 173 0.015 195 0.015 192July 0.014 187 0.015 195 0.016 205Aug 0.012 160 0.013 169 0.014 179Sept 0.011 147 0.012 156 0.013 167Oct 0.009 120 0.011 143 0.011 141Nov 0.009 120 0.010 130 0.010 128Dec .0.008 107 0.009 117 0.010 128

Average 0.011 144 0.012 153 0.012 155*These figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.Source: Rutherford & Associates

Table 4-12: Unincorporated Burke CountyMaximum Daily Water Use and Per Capita for 1990,1995, and 1999

(Water use reported in MGD)1990 1995 - 1999

Population: 12,762 Population: 13,277 Population: 214Daily Water Per capita* Daily Water Per capita* Daily Water Per capita*

Use Use UseJan 1.715 134 1.750 132 1.875 137Feb 1.830 143 1.845 139 1.990 145Mar 1.850 145 1.910 144 2.100 153Apr 1.900 149 1.940 146 2.125 155May 1.938 152 2.010 151 2,270 166June 2.100 165 2.140 1.61 2.405 176July 2.250 176 2.325 175 2.350 172Aug 2.050 161 2.290 172 2.190 160Sept 1.990 156 2.119 160 2.011 147Oct 1.800 141 1.950 147 1.900 139Nov 1.795 141. 1.850 139 1.850 135Dec 1.750 137 1.780 134 1.750 128

Average 1.914 150 1.992 150 2.068 151*These figures also include some commercial and industrial usage.

Source: Rutherford & Associates

1!~.1

II

.1

II

I,

i i

IV-26

' 2. Present Industrial water demand - present permitted facilitiesWater use for currently permitted industrial users is shown in Table 4-13. Industrial

* •classifications information is given by the North American Industrial ClassificationSystem (NAICS) codes.

Table 4-13: Industrial Water Usage (MGD) 1990- 1999,I _______________________________

'I

*1

II.j g

'1

* .1

'I

1990 1995 1997 1999

Plant Vogtle (Total)* - NAICS 22113 64.54 NA 63.61 NA

Ground water 2.27 NA .78 NA

Surface water 62.27 NA 62.83 NA

McBean Woodyard (Total)** - NAICS 113310 NA .18 NA .18NA: Not Available* Maximum Daily Use is not available. It can be expected that power generation would behigher in summer and winter months for increased cooling and heating demands.**The permitted use is reported as a maximum daily and monthly use. The process ofwetting down timber Is fairly constant, except during the winter months when rainfall Ishigh. The source of this water Is the Cretaceous aquifer.

Water conse rvatiion measures employed include a leak detec.ion programincorporating a goal of 10% reduction in unaccounted for water loss.

3. Present Agricultural water demandCorn, cotton, peanuts and soybeans are the major irrigated crops.

Table 4-14 shows present water demand for agricultural uses. As evidenced from acomparison of 1997 and 1999, the acreage irrigated was higher in 1997. However, thefact that 1999 was a drought year shows almost double the water needed for irrigation.

Table 4-14: Present Agricultural Water Demand

Surface Water and Groundwater (MGD)

1990- 1999

19901 1997 2 1999.3

Acres Irrigated 16,946 23,070 22,622

Water Used Ground 2.570 7.08 13.388

Surface .450 1.870 3.034

Total Water Use 3.020 8.950 16.734

Water usage and acreage irrigated reported in EPD Information Circular 90.2 Water usage and acreage irrigated reported in EPD Information Circular 104.

3 Acreage for working on Water Supply Management Plan. Assumes 10inches of irrigation per acre: 20% surface water, 80% groundwater. 1999 wasa drought year.

IV-27

I IAcres per crop and water use per crop data are shown in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15: Acres per Crop and Water Use (MGD) per Crop: 1990 - 1999

1990 1995 1999Water Water Water

Acres Acres AcresUse Use UseCorn 6,050 4.489 5,500 4.081 4,000 2.968

Cotton 2,010 1.491 8,153 6.049 13,513 10.026

Peanuts 3,200 2.374 3,250 2.411 4,500 3.339

Soybeans 2,060 1.528 800 0.593 500 0.371

Vegetables 50 0.067 200 0.266 100 0.133

Pecans 735 0.,545 2,650 1.966 2,700 2.003

Pasture 2,400 1.78 2,000 1.484 2,000 1,484

TOTAL 16,505 12.274 22,553 16.850 27,313 20.324Vegetables includecaucumbmars, squash, tomatoqs, peppea wateorme!Ons, andcantaloupes.Source: Burke County

Water conservation measures employedThere is no list of specific water conservation measures employed for agriculturalactivities in the past. However, all farmers employ Best Management Practices (BMP)for agricultural activities. The use of too much water causes soil erosion and nutrientloss and creates additional problems and expense for the farmers. Farmers useelectricity or diesel generators to run the pumps at the wells. Even though the waterbeing pumped has no cost, the methods implemented to utilize that water for irrigationare expensive. The costs of a well and a center pivot system can run several thousanddollars. The county will have to develop a countywide conservation program fordomestic and commercial usage. The county will have to work with local industries toassist them in efforts to reduce water usage. The agricultural community with supportfrom the county will have to study and implement conservation practices as thosediscussed in the EPD report entitled Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate forthe Southeastern United States.

IV-28

1

:1

.1

ii

1!

TiJi

.11

.1

~ ISi

Li

C. Future Water Demand (2000 - 2050)

1. Overall water demand projections

Table 4-16 provides projections for total water use for Burke County from 2000 through2050, including domestic, industrial and agricultural water use. This information assumescontinuation of current water use patterns. Projected water usage under conservationefforts are shown in Table 8-1.

Table 4-16: Daily Water Demand Projections for Burke County

Without Conservation Measures -2000 to 2050

Domestic -industrial 2 Agricultural 3 Total Water

(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Use (MGD)

2005 24,912 6.278 6.248 23.263 35.789

2010 26,650 6.716 6,873 24.848 38.4372015 28,648 72-219 7:560 . 261211 40:9902020 30,647 7.723 8.316 27.811 43.8502025 32,945 8.302 9.147 29.758 47.2072030 35,244 8.881 10.062 30.789 49.732

2035 37,359 9.414 11.068 33.181 53.663

2040 39,473 9.947 12.175 36.097 58.219

2045 41,447 10.445 13.393 38.861 62.699_____ _____ _____ __!F

197toa wtr sgerpotdgnanmePDifraincrua 0 a270MD" '1997 total water usage reported in an EPD information circular 104 was 12.720 MVGD.

, hls excludes the 62.83 MGD surface water used for thermoelectric.)Per capita usage Is calculated at 252 gpd.

2 Industrial usage grows by 10% each five-year increment through year 2050.

3 Agricultural usages increases by acreage irrigated from 28,550 acres in 2000 to 42,250 in 2050.Agricultural includes forestry and aquiculture.

:i

t

4 = 2. Future Domestic/Commercial Water DemandTables 4-17 through 4-20 provide estimates for water usage for each municipality and theunincorporated portion of the county. Again, these estimates are based on continuation ofcurrent water use practices.

IV-29

I ,

¶ ITable 4-17: Projected Water Demand (in gallons)

Girard Keysville

Year Population Water Demand* Population Water Demand*2000 216 54,432 415 104,5802005 241 60,732 598 150,6962010 266 67,032 742 186,9842015 285 71,820 1,003 252,7562020 306 77,112 1,165 293,5802025 329 82,908 1,384 348,7682030 352 88,704 1,586 399,6722035 373 93,996 1,830 461,1602040 395 99,540 2,013 507,2762045 415 104,560 2,268 571,5362050 434 109,368 2,475 623,700

• Current consumption of 252 gpd (This is based on county average usage)Source: Rutherford & Associates

Table 4-18: Projected Water Demand (in gallons)

Midville SardisYear Population Water Demand* Population Water Demand*2000 587 147,924 1,432 360,8642005 639 161,028 1,569 395,3882010 692 174,384 1,705 429,6602015 760 191,520 1,864 469,7282020 827 208,404 2,022 509,5442025 943 237,636 2,244 565,4882030 1,058 266,616 2,467 621,6842035 1,141 287,532 2,635 664,0202040 1,224 308,448 2,802 706,1042045 1,328 334,656 2,964 746,9282050 1,433 361,116 3,126 787,752

* Current consumption of 252 gpd (This is based on county average usage)Source: Rutherford & Associates

'1I I

i I

I ~

IV-30

J .,

1 t

Ji

Table 4-19: Projected Water Demnand (in gallons)Vidette Waynesboro

Year Population Water Demand* Population Water Demand*2000 107 26,964 6,237 1,571,7242005 133 33,516 6,823 1,719,3962010 .159 40,068 7,408 1,866,8162015 172 43,344 8,147 2,053,0442020 184 46,368 8,887 2,239,5242025 198 49,896 9,730 2,451,9602030 212 53,424 10,573 2,664,3962035 225 56,700 11,405 2,874,0602040 237 59,724 12,237 3,083,7242045 249 62,748 13,066 3,292,6322050 261 65,772 13,894 3,501,288

Current consumption of 252 gpd (This is based on county average usage)Source: Rutherford & Associates

? t

Table 4-20: Projected Water Demand (in gallons)

Unincorporated CountyYear Population Water Demand*2000 14,180 3,573,3602005 14,909 3,757,0682010 15,678 3,950,8562015 16,417 4,137,0842020 17,256 4,348,5122025 18,117 4,565,4842030 18,996 4,786,9922035 19,750 4,977,0002040 20,565 5,182,3802045 21,187 5,339,1242050 21,797 5,492,844

Current consumption of 252 gpd(This is based on county average usage)Source: Rutherford & Associates

Monthly average & maximum day use for each month, peak summer/winter consumptionIt is unrealistic to project these numbers because of the multiple unknown factors, suchas effectiveness of water conservation and water reuse measures, technologicaladvancements, types of industry, etc.

IV-31

3. Industrial water demand projections

Table 4-21 provides projections for water demand for industrial uses.

Table 4-21: Projected Industrial Water Demand (MGD)*

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 .2050

.50 2.50 4.00 5.40 7.20 9.00Does not include Plant Vogtle groundwater use

Source: Rutherford & Associates

Industrial growth is a possible reality for Burke County when one considers the GeorgiaPorts Authority expansion, the widening of US Highway 25 and the close proximity of areasof the County to the Augusta and Statesboro areas. Areas of the County north ofWaynesboro are in close proximity to Augusta. Land costs, work force, and proximity tomarkets or export areas make Burke County a contender for. industrial expansion. Effortsof the County Commission, the Development Authority, and the Chamber of Commerce willbe critical to the County's success as an industrial site. Industries to be served will includethe current NAICS industries of Plant Vogtle 221113 and McBean Woodyard 113310.

Monthly average & maximum day use for each month, neak summer/winter consumptionr-It-s urr'al stic -to project t fise -rn -e-um -bbr-sf -aus e ftlhe u!-ufA figl-6T kn-- i f-icht-as ...... -effectiveness of water conservation and water reuse measures, technologicaladvancements, types of industry, etc.

Water conservation measures to be employedThere are many possibilities for water conservation as technology continues to develop.Possibilities exist for recycling of process water, water reuse opportunities, andimprovements in overall production that may result in lower requirements for water.

IV-32J.

1;'"I

4. Agricultural Water Demand Projections

Table 4-22 shows projections for single-crop and double-crop agricultural uses from2000 through 2050. The table also projects the different acreage in single crop anddouble crop production.

ii

Table 4-22: Burke County

Agricultural Water Demand for Single and Double Crop UseYear Single crop Water Use Double crop Water Use Total DailyYear acres1 (MGD) acres2 (MGD) Use (MGD)2000 27,710 20.561 840 1.119 21.680

2005 28,050 20.813 950 1.265 22.079

2010 29,300 21.741 1,200 1.598 23.339

2015 29,800 22.112 1,450 1.931 24.043

2020 30,550 22.668 1,700 2.264 24.933

2025 31,550 23.410 2,000 2.664 26.074

2030 32,300 23.967 2,000 2.664 26.631

2035-- -...... 33550 24:894 2 ,500 3.330 2-8.224

2040 34,125 25.321 3,625 4.829 30.149

2045 35,875 26.619 4,125 5.495 32.114

2050 38,750 28.753 3,500 4.662 33.415

110 inches irrigation for 120 day growing season= 742 gals/acre/day2 18 inches irrigation for 270 day growing season=1332 gals/acre/day.

-Source: Burke County Agricultural Extension Office; Rutherford & Associates

Some new uses for groundwater in agricultural practices include aquaculture (catfishfarming) and vegetable crops. Kenaf, a fibrous crop that is a possible substitute for pulptrees, is being examined at the University of Georgia experimental stations. A new hybridgrain, pearl millet, is being considered as a crop that is drought-tolerant.

Li

* I

AquacultureIn 1980, over 2,000 acres of ponds were used in commercial catfish production in Georgia.Farmers in Burke County have expressed an interest in catfish farming. Catfish farming

requires a warm water environment for good growth. Optimum temperature is 85 degreesFahrenheit. South Georgia has about 250 days when the water is above 60 degreesFahrenheit. Ponds can be any size depending upon projected stocking rates. Depth ofthe water plays no part in determining the stock rate.

Pond sizes of approximately 10 acres seem to be the easiest to work and control waterquality issues. A pond of 10 acres averaging 5 feet in depth will require approximately16.3 million gallons of water.2 Water has to be added to the ponds periodically to replace

2 5 ft. = 326,000 acres ft. x 5 ft. = 1,630,000 x 10 = 16,300,000 gallons

IV-33

ii

water lost to evaporation. Assuming a one-inch loss of water per week to evaporation,approximately 3,847 gallons a day per acre would be required to maintain the originaldepth. 3 This does not include the water needed to initially fill the pond. The Burke CountyCooperative Extension Service office has estimated that 1,250 acres of catfish farms couldbe in existence by 2050.

KenafKenaf is being tested at several of the University of Georgia College of Agriculture andEnvironmental Science Branch Experiment stations. Kenaf is a tree-free paper made froma plan related to cotton and okra. Its historical roots go back thousands of years to ancientAfrica, the Middle East, and Asia. The United States Department of Agriculture becameinterested in this environmentally-friendly source of paper pulp during the 1940s and early'50s when paper usage in the U.S. nearly doubled. To meet the demand, forest werebeing logged at a tremendous rate, so the USDA began looking for a non-wood alternative.After much research, the agency decided that kenaf was the best choice.

Kenaf compares favorably in quality with trees as a source of fibers for paper, and it yieldsmore fiber per acre than southern pines grown in tree plantations. While trees can take 20to 25 years to reach maturity, kenaf can be harvested in just five months. Anotheradvanta-ge-of-growing this-tree-free-substitute is-that-it-is-naturally resistant to-most pestsand disease. The plant crowds out weeds, reducing the need for herbicides.

Using kenaf as a source of paper pulp can help save natural resources and the energyneeded to produce wood-based paper. In addition, it reduces pollution, and substituting itfor tree fibers helps to preserve wildlife habitats that are lost in logging.

Pearl MilletPearl millet is a grain crop common to Africa and India. Pearl millet, a member of the grassfamily, grows in heights ranging from 3 to 16 feet. It produces a long, dark spike,resembling a cattail, which holds hundreds of small blue or white grains resembling pearls.There are two types of pearl millet. One type produces grain and the other produces

forage for cattle. Farmers in semi-arid parts of India and west Africa grow 64 million acresof pearl millet. Fifty million acres are for food, making it the world's fourth most importanttropical food cereal.

Pearl millet might be an alternative to soybeans and corn, which to meet the demand inGeorgia, have to be imported from the Midwest. The Georgia poultry industry consumptionof soybeans is more than 15 times the amount grown in Georgia. Pearl millet couldbecome a new cash crop for Georgia farmers and could ultimately reduce irrigation needsfor farms in the future.

Vegetable farmingVegetable farming is moving from Florida to Georgia. South Georgia enjoys similar climate

3 1 inch = 27,000 gallons/week x 52 weeks/year = 1,404,000/year = 3,847 gallons/dayIV-34

ý J

I'

I~ II,II

1!j ~

II

ii

to that of Florida. With irrigation, vegetable farming can be very productive and profitablefor the farmers. In most casesi the farmers can get two vegetable crops a year with agrowing season of approximately 270 days. Vegetable farming will become a largeirrigation use in the future.

Acres per crop and water usage per crop data are shown in Table 14-23.

Table 14-23: Acres per Crop and Water Use (MGD) per Crop: 2000- 20502000 2005 ' 2010 " 2015 ' 2020 2025

WaAAr Water Water A Waler Water WaterAcres Acres Acres Use res Use [Acres AcrUsUUse Ie Use Use Use I Use

Corn

Cotton

Peanuts

Soybeans

Vegetables

Pecans

4,500

14,000

4,500

700

150

2,700

2,000

3.339

10.385

3.339

0.932

0.200

2.003

1.484

4,500

14,000

4,500

650

300

2,800

2,250

3.339

10.388

3.339

0.866

0.400

2.077

1.669

5,000

14,500

4,750

700

500

2,800

2,250

3.710

10.759

3.524

0.932

0.666

2.077

1.669

5,000

14,500

4,800

700

750

3,000

2,500

3.710

10.759

3.561

0.932

0.999

2.226

1.855

5,000

15,000

4,800

700

1,000

3,000

2,750

3.710

11.130

3.561

0.932

1.332

2.226

2.040

5,500

15,500

4,800

1,000

1,000

3,000

2,750

4.081

11.501

3.561

1.332

1.332

2.226

2.040

TOTAL 28,550 21.682 29,000 22.078 30,500 23.337 31,250 24.042 32,250 24.931 33,550 26.073

SI

ii

Acres pe Cr•p and Water Use MGD) per Crop: 2000 - 2050 (Cont.2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Water Water Water Acres Water WaterUse Use Use Use Use

Corn 5,500 4.081 6,000 4.452 6,500 4.823 7,000 5.194 7,500 5.565

Cotton 16,000 11.872 16,500 12.243 17,000 12.614 17,500 1'2.985 18,000 13.356

Peanuts 4,800 3.561 4,800 3.561 5,000 4.081 5,000 4.081 6,000 4.452

Soybeans 1,000 1.332 1,500 1.998 2,000 2.664 2,500 3.330 2,500 3.330

Vegetables 1,000 1.332 1,000 1.332 1,000 1.332 1,000 1.332 1,000 1.332

Pecans 3,000 2.226 3,000 2.226 3,000 2.226 3,500 2.597 3,500 2.597

Pasture 3,000 2.226 3,250 2.411 3,250 2.411 3,500 2.597 3,750 2.782

TOTAL 34,300 26.630 36,050 28.223 37,750 30.151 40,000 32.116 42,250 33.414

Vegetables Include cucumbers, squash, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons, and cantaloupes. Acreageof vegetable crops will be determined by market and other,economic conditions.

Source: Burke County, Rutherford & Associates

IV-35

Table 6-8 shows water use projections for agriculture, forestry and aquaculture.

Table 6-8: Burke County

Water Demand For Agricultural and Forestry Uses

Year 2000 to 2050

Agriculture Forest2 Aquaculture 3 Total WaterYear Water Acres Water Acres Water Use (MGD)

Acres (MGD) (MGD) _____

2000 28,550 21.68 200 0.089 200 0.769 22.538

2005 2,900 22.079 500 0.222 250 0.962 23.263

2010 30,500 23.339 800 0.355 300 1.154 24.848

2015 31,250 24.043 1,200 0.533 425 1.635 26.211

2020 32,250 24.933 1,500 0.666 575 2.212 27.811

2025 33,550 26.074 1,800 0.799 750 2.885 29.758

2030 34,300 26.631 2,000 0.888 850 3.270 30.789

2035 36,050 28.224 2,500 1.110 1000 3.847 33.181

2040 37,750 30.149 3,000 1.332 1200 4.616 36.0972045 40,000 32.114 3,500 1.554 1350 5.193 38.861

2050 42,250 33.415 4,000 1.776 1500 5.771 40.962I Irrigation uses Include single and double crop production: 120 days single crop; 270 days double crop.2 6 inches Irrigation for forestry use=444 gals/acre/day.3 To replace water loss due to evaporation, 1" loss/week (27,000 gallons/acre/week) converted to daily need(3,857 gallons/acre/day). Water needed to initially fill the ponds Is not Included.Source: Rutherford & Associates

Water conservation measures to be employed

Water conservation measures will have to be employed in order to maintain reasonableuse of the Floridan aquifer as a primary source of water. The county will have to develop acountywide conservation program for domestic and commercial usage. The county willhave to work with local industries to assist them in efforts to reduce water usage. Theagricultural community with support from the county will have to study and implementconservation practices as those discussed in the EPD report entitled IrrigationConservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States.

J !

I I

ii

1.1

I I

*1

'.1

.1

A A

IV-36

I.i

V. WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

A. Present Water Supply and Systems Management

1, Groundwater supply sources1[ The northern portion of Burke County lies over the Cretaceous aquifer. All theIl municipalities within Burke County utilize the Floridan aquifer. However, the City of

Waynesboro also utilizes the Cretaceous aquifer and surface water from .Brier Creek.Individual private wells are supplied by the Floridan aquifer. The 12 Safe Drinking WaterPermit systems in the county are supplied by the Floridan aquifer or the Cretaceousaquifer. Each municipality in the county has a water system. The water and sewer serviceareas of each municipality are shown on the maps in Appendix A.

Sii

The County does not presently own or operate a water system. The County should begindiscussions with the cities to best determine how and when water service can be offered tocitizens or industrial prospects.

The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has conducted numerous studies of theFloridan aquifer system in Southeast Georgia. 'These studies are made available to the

* Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for their review. Water quality is goodfor the Floridan aquifer system as used in Screven County. Numerous studies, relied onfor sources in development of this plan, indicate that water quality is not an issue. Allpublic water systems are required to complete Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR). TheCCR was mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and containsinformation on the quality of drinking water provided by the public systems.

i.J The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) isthe state agency that has statutory authority to regulate water use through a permittingsystem. This system requires permits for all withdrawals of surface water or groundwaterthat exceed 100,000 gallons per day. EPD issues Safe Drinking water permits for systemswithdrawing less than 100,000 gallons per day.

' It became apparent that some limitations on additional withdrawal from the Floridan Aquifersystem were appropriate in some parts of Coastal Georgia to protect the quality of publicwater supplies. The Interim Strategy was developed and implemented to address theseissues and to study the safe yield of groundwater sources through the Sound Science

*Initiative. Until the Sound Science Initiative concludes, the safe yield of groundwater*sources cannot be determined or planned for by local governments.

Wellhead protection programs are critical to reduce the potential to impact groundwaterquality. The county in partnership with the County Health Department should make surethat all wells in service in thecounty are part of a wellhead protection program.

V-37

The existing permitted systems have the capabilities to exceed their permitted withdrawalamount. However, since a permit exists for each system, the likelihood of exceeding thepermit is minimal.

2. Surface water supply sources

Approximately 64 of the 115 agricultural withdrawal permits utilize a surface source, as isreported in EPD records, such as a pond, tributary of 8-mile Creek, Brier Creek or theSavannah River. The City of Waynesboro operates the County's only surface watertreatment plant at Brier Creek about 5 miles northeast of the City on State Route 56.Water Supply Watershed criteria aire in effect for this area.

The Savannah River could be utilized as a water supply option. However, the cost oftreatment and distribution could be limiting. The opportunity for a major reservoir to beconstructed in the future by municipalities and the agricultural sector could present asolution for both public and private users. Information on possible withdrawal amountsfrom the Savannah River is available from EPD. However, the safe yield of the river wouldhave to be determined after consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the-E P D. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A surface water withdrawal permit is needed to utilize water from any of the state's manysurface sources. Information concerning safe yield and water quality could be obtained.

As to source protection measures for surface water, many communities are now or willsoon be required to meet certain stormwater discharge criteria. The quality of surfacestreams can be negatively impacted by poor stormwater management practices. This is an I Jarea that rural counties will begin addressing in the near future.

Any public water systems utilizing surface water in the future would have a systemcapabilities analysis at that time.

The County, in coordination with the cities and farmers, need to petition the state andfederal government to re-examine the possibilities of impoundment construction. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will be a lead player in this endeavor along with the USDA'sNatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to study impacts of impoundment andpossible site locations.

Impoundments could be a major conservation tool since significant rainfall occurs duringnon-growing months. The capture of this rainfall could provide a supplemental source ofwater for irrigation. Furthermore, treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plantscould potentially discharge directly to impoundments, thus eliminating a point sourcedischarge into rivers while providing irrigation water for agriculture. This effluent mayrequire higher standards for agricultural use, depending on the crop.

V-38

3. Present water supply intergovernmental cooperationThere are no intergovernmental water supply agreements. All the municipalities arelocated such a distance from each other that interconnection is not possible at this time.As the county grows, it is possible that Waynesboro may have the opportunity forexpanded service outside its corporate limits, as growth will probably occur along USHighway 25 as it is expanded to four lanes from Statesboro to Millen and Waynesboro.

I I 4. Water Supply CapabilitiesThe City of Waynesboro has a total water supply capacity, surface water and groundwater,of 3.5 million gallons per day. Midville has a capacity of .288 million gallons per day.Sardis has a capacity of .200 million gallons per day. The cities of Girard, Keysville, andVidette have capacities of less that .100 million gallons per day each.

B. Future Water Supply and Systems Management

Overall water quality data from the Cretaceous, Dublin, and Midville aquifers is notcompletely known. The safe yield and quality will have to be determined through

....... studies-. Wellhead-protectior-programs and other-source-protection programs -will-beneeded.

1. Groundwater supply optionsIt is anticipated that Burke County and its municipalities will develop the Cretaceousaquifer system to supplement the Floridan aquifer as their primary source of water. TheCretaceous aquifer may serve as a viable source of water to reduce the County's overalldependence on the Floridan aquifer. The Dublin and Midville aquifers may provide somelimited amount of supply. However, it is important to continue to study the alternativeaquifers prior to becoming dependent on them only to find that there may be a problem.

It is very likely that Waynesboro will extend water and sewer services outside its corporatelimits to meet future water and wastewater demands. Depending on the location of newgrowth, the smaller cities in the county without wastewater treatment capabilities may haveto construct small wastewater systems. Waynesboro will need to continue to upgrade itswastewater collection system to reduce inflow and infiltration (1/I) during storm events. Thewastewater capacity saved from 1Il reductions can be used for new customers.

11

. 2. Surface water supply optionsAdditional surface water sources may be developed from Brier Creek or the Savannah

*River. However, the cost of treatment and distribution could be limiting. The opportunityfor a major reservoir to be constructed in the future by municipalities and the agriculturalsector could present a solution for both public and private users. The safe yield of theSavannah River would have to be determined after consultation with the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers and the EPD.

V-39

The County, in coordination with the cities, and farmers need to petition the state andfederal government to re-examine the possibilities of impoundment construction. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will be a lead player in this endeavor along with the USDA'sNatural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to study impacts of impoundment andpossible site locations.

Impoundments could be a major conservation tool since significant rainfall occurs duringnon-growing months. The capture of this rainfall could provide a supplemental source ofwater for irrigation. Furthermore, treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plantscould potentially discharge directly to impoundments, thus eliminating a point sourcedischarge into rivers while providing irrigation water for agriculture. This effluent mayrequire higher standards for agricultural use, depending on the crop.

As to source protection measures for surface water, many communities are now or willsoon be required to meet certain stormwater discharge criteria. The quality of surfacestreams. can be negatively impacted by poor stormwater management practices. This is anarea that rural counties will begin addressing in the near future. Another source protectionmeasure may include a watershed protection strategy as required by EPD.

Vi

'I

V/-40 i

I..

VI. FUTURE LAND USE

Future land uses for each jurisdiction in Burke County are depicted in Tables 6-1 through6-8. One basic assumption that the reader must keep in mind is that the acres within aparticular jurisdiction will not change. In other words, no annexations by local cities werecalculated.

I I The tables show the increase in acres for a particular land use, such as residential, tocover new homes constructed and commercial to show more acres being utilized ascommercial use as the population increases and so forth. Of course, as more,development occurs, the property identified as vacant/undeveloped will decrease. In somecases, agricultural/forestry land will decrease also.

Review of the Burke County Current Land Use Map (in Appendix A) shows the vastamount of agricultural/forestry land in the County and the opportunities for new growth.

Total acres in the county equal 532,992.

VI4

41

,1

'1

' ~VI-4-1

Table 6-1: Distribution of Land Uses for Girand for 2000 - 20502000 2025 2050

Population 216 Population 329 Population 434Households 83 Households 127 Households 167Total Acres 2,058 Total Acres 2,058 j Total Acres 2.058

Acres per Percent Acres per Percent Changein Ars Acres per Percent Change inHousehold Land Area Household Land Aea Acres Household LandArea Acres

Residential 126 1.518 6.12% 170 1.339 8.26% 44 210 1.257 10.20% 40

Commercial 4 0.050 0.20% 6 0.050 0.31% 2 10 0.060 0.49% 4

Industrial 0 0.000 0.00% 9 0.070 0.43% 9 13 0.080 0.65% 4

Vnto 443 5.336 21.52% 379 2.981 18.4A. -64 1.933 15.69% -56Undeveloped

Recreation/3 0.040 0.16% 6 0.050 0.31% 3 8 0.050 0.41% 2Open Space

Trans/Commf 6 0.070 0.28% 9 0.070 0.43% 3 12 0.070 0.57% 3Utilities

Public/ 6 0.070 0.28% 9 0.070 0.43% 3 12 0.070 0.57% 3Semi-Public

Agricultural! 1470 17.711 71.43% 1470 11.575 71.43% 0 1470 8.802 71.43% 0Forestry

Source: Rutherford & Associates from data in Burke County Comprehensive Plan, 1990-2010

VI-42

Table 6-2: Distribution of Land Uses for Keys~ifle for 2000 - 2050

2000 2025 2050

Population 415 Population 1,384 Population 2475Households 160 Households 532 Households 952Total Acres 486 Total Acres 486 Total Acres 486'

Acres per Percent Acres per Percent Change in Acres per Percent Change inHousehold LandArea Household Land Area Acres Household LandArea Acres

Residential 223 1.394 45.88% 335 0.629 68.85-k 112 398 0.418 81.81% 63

Commercial 5 0.030 0.99% 11 0.020 2.19% 6 19 0.020 3.92% 8

Industrial 1 0-005 0.16% 3 0.005 0.62% 2 7 0.000 1.44% 4

Vacantl 153 0.956 31.47% 43 0.081 8.82% -110 21 0.022 4.26% -22Undeveloped

Recreation/ 0Open Space 1 0.005 0.16% 3 0.005 0.550% 2 0.005 0,98% 2

Trans/Comm/ 1 0.008 0.26% 4 0.008 0.88% 3 8 0.008 1.57% 4Utilities

Public/Semi-Public 2 0.015 0.49% 8 0.015 1.64% 6 14 0.015 2.94% 6

Agricultural/Forestry 100 0.625 20.58% 80 0.150 16.46% -20 15 0.016 3.09% -65

Forestry &

Source: Rutherford & Associates from data in Burke County Comprehensive Plan, 1990 - 2010

VI-43

Table 6-3: Disfrbution of Land Uses for Midilfle for 2000- 2050

2000 2025 1 2050Population 587 Population 943 Population 1443Households 226 Households 363 Households 551Total Acres 1,423 Total Acres 1,423 Total Acres 1,423

Land Use Type Acres Acres per Percent Acres Acres per Percept Change in Acres Acres per Percent Change inHousehold LandArea Household. LandAkea Acres Household Land Area Acres

Residential 160 0.708 11.24% 297 0.818 20.87% 137 485 0.880 34.08% 188

Commercial 7 0.030 0.48% 11 0.030 0.77% 4 17 0.030 1.16% 6

Industrial 1 0.005 0.08% 3 0.000 0.21 %1m 2 7 0.000 0.49% 4

Vacant!U nd l 1146 5.071 80.54% 998 2.748 70.1"0,% -148 792 1.438 55.69% -206Undeveloped

Oenpe 5 0.020 0.32% 7 0.020 0.51% 2 11 0.020 0.77% 4Open Space

Trans/Comm/ 2 0.010 0.16% 4 0.010 0.26w 2 6 0.010 0.39% 2Utilities

Public/Semi-Public 2 0.010 0.16% 4 0.010 0.26% 2 6 0.010 0.39% 2

Agrculturall 100 0.442 7.03% 100 0.275 7.03% 0 100 0.181 7.03% 0Forestry

Source: Rutherford & Associates from data in Burke County Comprehensive Plan, 1990 - 2610

VI-44

Table 6-4: Distribution of Land Uses for Sardis for 2000 - 20502000 2025 2050

Population 1,432 Population 2,244 Population 3,126Households 551 Households 863 . Households 1,202Total Acres 807 Total Acres 807 Total Acres 807

Land Use Type Acres Acres per Percent Acres per Percegt Change in A Acres per Percent Change inHousehold Land Area Acres Household LandArea Acres cres Household LandArea AcresResidential 320 0.581 39.65% 476 0.552 58.98% 156 588 0.489 72.85% 112

Commercial 6 0.010 0.68% 9 0.010 1.07% 3 36 0.030 4.47% 27

Industrial 3 0.005 0.34% 3 0.005 0.370/6 0 7 0.000 0.87% 4

Vacant]Undeveloped 355 0.644 44.00% 187 0.216 23.12,o) -168 50 0.042 6.24% -136

Recreation/OpentSpac 3 0.005 0.34% 4 0.005 0.53% 2 6 0.005 0.74% 2Open Space

Trans/Comm/trans 4 0.008 0.55% 7 0.008 0.86% 2 10 0.008 1.19% 3Utilities

Semi-Public 17 0.030 2.05% 22 0.025 2.67% 2 30 0.025 3.72% 8

Agricultural/ 100 0.181 12.39% 100 0.116 12.39% 0 80 0.067 9.91% -20

Forestry

Source: Rutherford & Associates from data in Burke County Comprehensive Plan, 1990 - 2610

VI-45

Table 6-5: Distribution of Land Uses for Vidette for 2000 - 2050

2000 2025 2050Population 107 Population 198 Population 261Households 41 Households 76 Households 100Total Acres 532 Total Acres 532 Total Acres 532

Acres per Percent Acres per Percerht Change in Acres per Percent Change inLand Use Type Acres Household LandArea Acres Household Lend A-ee Acres Acres Household Land Area Acres

Residential 54 1.317 10.15% 80 1.056 15.08% 26 92 0.923 17.34% 12

Commercial 4 0.100 0.77% 6 0.080 1.14% 2 9 0.090 1.69% 3

Industrial 0 0.000 0.00% 0 0.000 0.00% 0 0 0.000 0.00% 0

Vacant/23 0.559 4.31% 10 0.134 1.91% -13 12 0.118 2.21% 2Und~eveloped

Recreation/Open Spae 3 0.080 0.62% 5 0.070 1.00% 2 7 0.070 1.32% 2

Trans/Comm/trans 7 0.160 1.23% 8 0.100 1.43% 1 12 0.120 2.26% 4Utilities

Public/Semi-Public 6 0.150 1.16% 8 0.100 1.43% 2 10 0.100 1.88% 2

Agricultural/ 435 10.610 81.77% 415 5.461 78.01% -20 390 3.900 73.31% -25Forestry

Source: Rutherford & Associates from data in Burke County Comprehensive Plan, 1990 - 2b10

VI-46

Table 6-6: Distribution of Land Uses for Waynesboro for 2000 - 2050

2000 2025 , _2050

Population 6,237 Population 9,730 Population 13,894

Households 2